Talk:Angus Taylor (politician)

Edit warring/full protection

As this seems to be a very long-running dispute, I've returned the article to the pre-dispute state and fully protected it for 30 days. My hope is that this will give time for consensus to develop about the article. - Bilby (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that locking down the article due to the individual at hand blanking content and us reverting it I don't think counts as a content dispute. The content blanking was done in good faith, but was ultimately disruptive, and the suggested sockpuppet reverting it a 4th time to game the system I don't think is justified. @Bilby:, would you please unprotect the article? If you were to look at the content, you are to see that it mostly consists of reliable sources, and is mostly in a Neutral point of view. (Except for a small bits with juxtaposition) I fear that this 'full protection' on the article may give the COI user the wrong idea about how Wikipedia works. Editorial decisions are based on WP:CONSENSUS, not on legal threats and mass content blanking. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to leave it protected while we figure this out. There is a content dispute, in that at least one editor has been edit warring with other editors about what the article should say. Given that there are claims of defamation - which might be the case - it seems a lot safer to err by being a bit overly cautious and locking it in a neutral state, rather than being a bit too free and risking defamatory content. Neither party has tried to engage in discussion, as far as I can tell, so let's see where discussion will lead us. - Bilby (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed that some relatively minor edits I made to this page were reverted by User:Louiseclegg. It looks like there's a pattern of blanking by the user, with no explanation for which content is disputed or considered biased. The removed content appears to all mostly in relation to the subject's public stance against wind turbine technology. While the noting of that stance may be uncomfortable to the COI editor, unless the claims for falsehood, defamation or bias can be rapidly substantiated, I vote, @Bilby:, that the edits are restored and User:Louiseclegg be urged to bring discussion to this page. Renewable energy is currently topical in Australia and the subject of this biographical article has become a key participant in the debate. This entry would be poorer for omitting all references to the subjects notable contribution. ArthurSkittle (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this to the talk page. My edits were deleted and all related to key policy areas for this current member of the Australian Federal Parliament. The sources used in my edits are strong, accurate and reliable. Sources include: the page subject’s own press releases; video footage of the subject addressing crowds; the subjects own letters and comments in local and major Australian newspapers; and reports prepared for Government etc. My edits are not defamatory and directly relate to comments from the subject or are covered by a reliable accurate citation. I would urge all editors to check all of my sources used in my edits, and please let me know if something is genuinely problematic by way of Wikipedia standards. To make the page more encyclopaedic it would be great if my edits would be built on, clarified or challenged rather than just deleted. In the meantime it would be good if my edits could be restored if possible.1955Dewayne (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

At this stage I don't see any real urgency to restore the text, and I'd like to see if Louiseclegg can explain what parts in particular were seen as problematic. Hopefully such an explanation will clarify things, so we know better how to proceed. - Bilby (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@bilby Caution is warranted for BLP, but what amount of time is reasonable to allow for substantiation of claims? Edits that don't violate BLP guidelines should be restored. ArthurSkittle (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the material needs to be pared down a lot before it's added back, at a minimum. There seems to be serious WP:weight issues when a substanial part of the subjects biography. Especially since many of the sources seem to be very poor, e.g. blogs or other partisan sources, primary sources without any secondary sources establishing the significance or relevance of the subject matter to this biography (whether in the form of a rejoinder to Taylor's views or letters Taylor wrote but which, at least from our article, don't seem to have been talked about in RSes). I mean even the run with the wind thing doesn't seem particularly relevant, the source we used doesn't mention his views on wind power [1]. I know the Australian media seem to be highly partisan (as evidenced by their coverage of the recent election) but we can surely do better than this. Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nil Einne that the paragraph about "Run With The Wind" was unnecessarily POV and sounds like "activist-speak". It should be significantly edited or removed. However I don't agree with the claim that the sources presented are "very poor", "blogs or other partisan sources" etc. I took a look back at a version from 16 May that has 31 references. It looks to me that most of references are from well respected newspapers, and moreover the references are generally neutral or supportive of the subject. Only two references are from the renewable energy news blog RenewEconomy, which is written by a respected journalist. I can't see evidence of referencing partisan sources or referencing out of context. Please substantiate the wider claims. I do agree that the article was recently weighted towards the issue of wind energy, but frankly this public figure has yet to make a name for himself on other issues and holds a significant position in the current political dialog. It would be good if other aspects of his persona were added, rather than hiding an aspect that is clearly present, but perhaps uncomfortable to his COI contributors. ArthurSkittle (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nil Einne and Bilby here - and this is as someone who vehemently agrees with the slant of the material being added. While it might be worth mentioning in some form, it constitutes serious undue weight on the issue in an article on a living person, and that's just not acceptable for Wikipedia purposes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Don’t agree that poor sources have been used and earlier edits only point out consistent and regular policy views from the subject. I see how ‘run with the wind’, in its current wording, could be seen to be partisan and unnecessary. The subject is supporting a significant local event and is an accomplished triathlete, but it’s of minor relevance. Could be moved to ‘personal life’ and re-worded or deleted? Thanks for the recent contributions and desire to improve the article, but onus should be on COI User:Louiseclegg to point out defamatory material. @Bilby: how do you envisage proceeding? Suggest a time-frame of a few days to respond, rather than protecting the article for 30 days.1955Dewayne (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

But have you actually looked at the sources? Let's look at them [2]:

I'll start from the wind farm bit.

The first paragraph only has 3 sources, one is the letter itself and the other two are sources about the wind farm. There's zero evidence of any significance of this letter in the form of coverage about it in reliable secondary sources.

The second paragraph starts off a little better. It at least includes something which seems to be a reliable secondary source and includes resonably extensive coverage of Taylor's views. It includes another letter but since it only seems to be backing up the secondary source coverage of Taylor's views that's not so bad. But it gets worse near the end where it tries to 'reply' to Taylor's views with a source that doesn't mention Taylor at all. The info in the source may be correct, but without any clear connection between the info in the source and Taylors views, as established by a reliable secondary source, it's entirely unclear that it belongs.

The third paragraph only includes the earlier secondary source coverage of Taylor's views so it looks fine.

The fourth paragraph includes a Youtube video and website belonging to Stopthesethings.com. Whoever is behind this website, and whether they are positive about Taylor, there's zero evidence it's a reliable secondary source. Perhaps more importantly, there's zero evidence of any significance of Taylor's partipation at the rally. The reliable secondary source doesn't mention Taylor's participation and in fact seems to suggest it wasn't a particularly significant rally.

The fifth paragraph includes a press release by Angus Taylor (ironically the version we are linking to is on a blog which I'm guessing did not agree with Taylors views) and a reply on a blog. Again, whoever may be behind the blog and reply, there's zero evidence it's a reliable secondary source. If the person behind the blog is really a notable expert on wind farms (although to be blunt, if they are a journalist, probably not), their views might be okay in articles like our wind farm one. Not so much for the article on Angus Taylor. As with paragraph 2, it makes the mistake of using a possible RS at the end with no clear connection to Taylor. So even ignoring the fact that we have no evidence Taylor's press release was significant enough to be covered in the article on him (i.e. we have no clear reliable secondary source coverage of the press release), there's no evidence the study is of significant relevance to Taylor's views to be covered either.

The sixth paragraph is probably the only one without any clear cut issues.

The seventh paragraph, well I've already covered the issues with this. While we could remove the mention of any connection to his views on wind farms and cover it somewhere else, I'm not sure it's really significant anyway. In other words, while I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning it, it seems a bit odd to mention his participation in a single apparently non notable running event unless his participation in this even was particularly significant (which doesn't seem to be established by the sources). Perhaps if he participated in the London marathon or something, similar to the way we mention he competed in the triathlon world championship. Or alternatively if he's an avid runner or whatever, and we mention that (rather than his participation in this single event).

I didn't look so well at the coal seam and publications things as they seem less disputed. The sourcing there looks somewhat better to from a quick glance.

And I'm utterly unconvinced by the claim Taylor isn't noted for much else since a quick search on Google news found lots of mentions of Taylor few of them about wind farms. In fact many of them are about the Australian budget and related issues like budget cuts and austerity measures, funds for roads, NBN issues, a GST hike or other GST changes, 'pork barrelling' etc. Further back there's stuff like mention of mobile phone coverage blackspots and other random stuff like the opening of a sewerage plant, something to do with ISS (related to the mobile phone coverage issue perhaps?), ANZAC day, the William etc visit. In fact I only saw 3 references to wind farms, and only one of them looks like it's a reliable secondary source. Of course mostly these represent what's topical.

Still if we look at more general mentions of him, [3], there's no mention at all of wind farms. This was at the time of the election, but most of our reliable secondary sources about him and wind farms also are so there's no clear evidence his views on wind farms only became significant after the election. The fact that opponents of his views may care more now that he's part of the governing coalition in Australia is of course largely besides the point unless this carries over in to reliable secondary source coverage of his wind farms views. I wasn't able to find a general biography ([4] is a bit brief and from before most of our RSS on his wind farms views) but I doubt most RSS ones include the level of detail about his wind farm views as we do either.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to detail your thoughts. You raise some good points. Here are my suggestions.

Para 1 – I feel that this provides context, is not controversial and is currently topical as the wind farm is currently being constructed.

Para 2 – I note your concerns with the end of this para. Adding the source http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/the-dangerous-thinking-behind-coalition-renewable-energy-policy-84896 should address this concern.

Para 4 - Suggest inclusion of this additional reference for the “wind power fraud rally” http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/libs-defy-party-on-wind-farms-20130525-2n3rn.html and http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/18/canberra-windfarm-protesters-renewable-energy . This would leave the YouTube clip and Stop These Things references as complementary.

Para 5- the addition of these two references should address your concerns http://www.goulburnpost.com.au/story/1853739/mp-calls-for-compensation/ and http://www.crookwellgazette.com.au/story/1862736/conflicting-views-on-wind-farm-property-value-affects/

Para 7 – agree this can be left out.

I hope this addresses your concerns, let me know what you think. We remain in disagreement regarding wind as a key political / policy platform for the subject. The subject made his position known before and since being elected and this was reflected in the page before it was protected. You do mention a number of topical issues that any good MP should address. For instance, every MP in Australia or New Zealand would have attended or said something with regard to ANZAC day. Likewise there is not an MP in rural Australia that wouldn't be campaigning for increased road funding in their electorates. Fact remains wind energy is a stand-out political issue for this MP and it should be covered. All the edits and enhancements could be made to a live page. As we are yet to hear from the COI editor to substantiate original claims, I would suggest the page be unprotected to make the above improvements and any continued refinements. 1955Dewayne (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Bilby: Please consider discussions posted above since page was reverted and locked on 18 May 2014. The justifications and proposed edits by 1955Dewayne would appear to adequately address the concerns raised by Nil Einne. Note that we do not know whether the concerns of the COI editor Louiseclegg have been addressed as she has not publicly acknowledged any requests to this page or her talk page. I'd suggest that the onus is on her to substantiate claims of defamation, in the absence of which, we should be able to synthesize WP:CONSENSUS. ArthurSkittle (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on this, but although there has been discussion, it doesn't look like there is a clear consensus yet. Although I don't feel that we have to wait for Louiseclegg's input if they don't choose to take part. - Bilby (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been a week without any objection to 1955Dewayne's suggested fixes, and Louiseclegg has never substantiated her claim, or been seen on Wikipedia since she started an edit war. I doubt we'll get a response from the objectors until the revised content is published. At that point the objectors can use standard Wikipedia processes, rather than edit wars, to improve the content. Please unlock. ArthurSkittle (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll prompt Nil Einne. At the moment we've had a proposal by Nil Einne and a response by 1955Dewayne, but nothing further. If we have agreement I'm happy to unprotect. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bilby: Nil Einne appears to have lost interest in this article (no response for 14 days, despite being a very active contributor). The COI contributor, Louiseclegg, hasn't made an edit on Wikipedia for about 17 days. No-one has objected to 1955Dewayne proposed compromise edits. It looks like the heat has gone out of this page. Please lift the page protection so that contributors can use normal Wikipedia processes to improve this article. ArthurSkittle (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll unprotect it in the hope this doesn't resurface, but it doesn't look to me as if anything has been resolved. - Bilby (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits following unprotection

I have amended my earlier edits and reinstated them following discussion on the talk page. Changes as per my comments - 23 May 2014. Would be good if future edits and enhancements could be made to a live page along side discussions on the talk page, rather than disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1955Dewayne (talk • contribs) 00:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC) 1955Dewayne (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to delete the entire section. It has multiple issues on sourcing, synthesis and weight. Do we have a good secondary source for any of this? Giving a link to a letter to the editor - in the metropolis of Crookwell - and editorialising on it here is not what we do. --Pete (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

OK - earlier discussion on the talk page also raised this. Whilst it gives context I note that it currently lacks a good secondary source and have removed it. Can you be more specific with your concerns regarding other paras? 1955Dewayne (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of policy. WP:WEIGHT is the most obvious. We have an article about a politician and we find that the section on political views occupies most of the article and is devoted exclusively to energy. A reader would gain the impression that the politician had no other views and was dedicating his life to opposing wind farms. I don't think that this is the case. A more reasonable weighting would be one sentence in a short paragraph, given the other content. Also, the lede doesn't mention any of this stuff you put in and the lede is supposed to be a summary of the whole article. So let's work on weight, first. --Pete (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

For once, I agree entirely with Skyring. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Happy to work on this as the subject’s other policy positions develop. However, as I mentioned before, as it stands wind energy / renewable energy is a stand-out political issue for this MP and it should be covered to the extent it has. Cheers1955Dewayne (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This is far, far, far too much weight for an article on a first-term backbencher on his views on an issue he's not primarily publicly known for. Pick a better fight, dude - this is unjustifiable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, just to give notice that I have been asked by Angus Taylor's office to help manage this page. After following the discussion on this page, it's pretty clear that the edits being made are not consist with the intent of this page. The material relating to wind farms is not relevant to his biography and is needlessly provocative. Wikipedia biographies aim for facts, and should be a not a forum for political agendas. Therefore we will be reverting the page to the state is was when protected. Happy to keep the talk going but its pretty clear what the issue is. Hawkesyj (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

A complete reversion is just a continuation of the edit war started by the subject's wife and, in the context go the discussion above, could be considered to be WP:VANDALISM. Completely hiding this public individual's important role (locally and nationally) in an important public policy debate reduces the value of this article. I will therefore restore the version prior to the recent revision. If there is any controversy on this page, it is around the issue of WP:WEIGHT, not truthfulness, or defamation (as originally claimed by the WP:COI editor who went AWOL). This article would be improved with information on other issues that the WP:BLP subject is engaged with. Hawkesyj: It is not appropriate to simply revert; you should strive to improve the page. Be WP:BOLD, but don't simply revert. Please also consider whether you need to declare a WP:COI. ArthurSkittle (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to do better than this, ArthurSkittle. Hawkesyj clearly has a conflict of interest - but he's also right. I agree 100% ideologically with you but on this article you're wildly out of line and this section as it is is indefensible. I don't particularly want to have to join the crowd of people reverting you, but you need to come up with something a lot closer to what Skyring suggested above than what is there now. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The effect of the undue weight placed on one facet seems to have been that attention has been drawn to what should be a short article on a minor politician. Really, this shouldn't be something we need to edit war over in order to comply with policy. How about we find ONE reliable source that gives a good overview, and use it for one or two sentences? --Pete (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a number of sentences in 1955Dewayne entries on wind energy could be edited. I will make a significant edit in the two days. It would also be good if other issues that this MP is notable for can be added. ArthurSkittle (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I was in Taylor's electorate yesterday. We drove past a windfarm on the Hume and it emerges there is a lot of local opposition to these things. The ongoing Tarago unpleasantness is a case in point. --Pete (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Lack of balance and section blanking

We've discussed the WP:WEIGHT situation before. There's an imbalance, and it's causing real life problems now. One last plea to anyone who has a concern about putting their views. Please trim the section down to one or two well-sourced sentences, or I will do it with a heavier and less sympathetic hand. This is not the sort of crap I want to spend my time on. --Pete (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why this content appears controversial to some. Lookup "Angus Taylor" "wind farm" in your favourite news index and you'll see that there is wide coverage of the subject's opposition to wind farm; the subject has taken this up as a major focus. He was even quoted in a front page article in the country's national newspaper yesterday. Is there any other issue he is more engaged in? If so, let's write it up, but at the moment there are have been no challenges to the facts in this article, nor a convincing argument that this article places undue weight on this facet. What are the real-world problems Pete this piece is causing? I do believe that some of the text could be improved, but it doesn't serve anyone, except the BLP subject and perhaps the COI editors, to airbrush a major part of the subject's work. ArthurSkittle (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It goes towards NPOV. His opposition to wind farms is justified for inclusion - from what I can see it reflects the attitudes of his electorate ever since the Crookwell project stirred up anger amongst locals back in the Nineties - but the length is a problem. Is it really the entirety of his political views? Is it worth as much space as the rest of his entire life put together? I don't think so. Going by policy, we need to prune it down and balance it.

The real life problems being caused are through people (presumably associated with AT) taking it upon themselves to remove what they see as inaccuracies and biased material. Section blanking and edit-warring by WP:SPAs are sure paths to being blocked, but this isn't really a good outcome for anybody, least of all Wikipedia. SPAs they may be, but still there is a real person behind the computer edits, and it would be more productive to engage these folk and to encourage them to be productive editors.

The problem stems from biased editing and polemic insertion. Obviously some feel strongly about wind farms and it is their religious crusade to champion their cause at every opportunity and crush all opposition. I feel the same about Tim Tams, just quietly, so be warned. But for every act of bias, there will be someone with a counter opinion. Making our encyclopaedia the battleground between forces unable to accept each other's views is not what we really want, entertaining though it might be to watch fundamentalist zealots bung gibbers at one another. --Pete (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed my earlier edit, Second Para in wind section – debate has moved debate has clearly moved since this statement. Also re-worded the last para in the wind section. I have removed the wind / property values section as this is better suited to other articles on Wikipedia. As I have said a number of times in the talk page, wind / renewables is a massive policy issue for the subject. I don’t see the weight issue, in this context. For instance, not having wind/renewables here (or just a sentence or two) would be like having Andrew Wilkie’s page with nothing about poker machines. 1955Dewayne (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Which I note that AW's article is a lot longer than AT's, and although the section on pokies is about the same size as this one one windfarms etc, it has a longstanding note about it being of undue weight. We've got a long way to go yet. Any primary or minor sources can be deleted - if the ABC or SMH didn't report it, it's not going to be worth including for the target length. --Pete (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Trimming down 'views'

I've gone through this section, removing material of minor importance or contrary to policy.

• The "Liberal Tilts at Windmills" article from the AFR is an excellent source, though it dates from his candidate days. I don't think there's any need to mention, let alone link to 'Fairfax Media'. The Australian Financial Review is very well known and regarded, being one of the two national daily papers.
• The Goulburn Times letter isn't needed. The statement is supported by the AFR source.
• The statement based on a "NewEconomy" article on how he developed his views seems to be more an attack on methodology in general than anything pertinent to AT. Removed.
• Attendance at an anti-wind farm rally. Just one of many. Politicians attend protests and rallies on a regular basis. We rarely mention these instances in other articles, so why here? Removed.
• Criticism of ACT. I'll leave this for the moment, but we really need his direct quote. Lumping him in with a bunch of other politicians in a general 'criticism' doesn't seem particularly relevant to me. Do we say the same thing of Katrina Hodgkinson (the NSW member for the same area) in her article? Seems rather unhelpful to the reader looking for information on this specific politician.
• Coal seam gas. The one secondary source supporting this subsection (the ABC) only mentions AT in a long list of "others". In addition, it's WP:SYNTHESIS to lump together a series of selected factoids and invite the reader to draw a conclusion. If there is a direct report of the subject of this article, using those facts, then use it. Otherwise we are just constructing an argument out of bits and pieces selected for that purpose. We don't draw conclusions ourselves or invite readers to infer what we infer, especially not in a BLP. Removed.

As a general comment, it is always better to find a specific quote by or direct statement on the subject of a BLP than cobbling together things like letters to the editor, membership of boards, attendance in protest crowds and the like. The AFR article is directly concerned with the subject, is from a reliable source, and pertinent. It is excellent. More like this, please. --Pete (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

On the ACT criticism, when looking at the source, here are Taylor's own words from the article:

(There's a lot of community angst. I don't think that these wind farms consult enough.) Mr Taylor agrees and says it is no surprise the ACT Government wants to use wind turbines over the border. "It's published a map with where it's proposing those developments might be, every one of them is beyond its borders," he said. "As we look around we see high mountains, we know these are windy areas, there are opportunities to build them [within the ACT]. If they are to pursue flawed policies then they should be pursued within the ACT."[5]

He's not criticising the ACT's RET as such, but pointing out the hypocrisy of not building wind farms on suitable land within the ACT. I've changed the wording to reflect Taylor's statements accurately. --Pete (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback:

• “The Goulburn Times letter isn't needed.” OK fine, it’s an additional source, doesn’t take anything away, but if it makes you happy.
• “statement based on a "NewEconomy." No, statement and citation should stay. RenewEconomy is a sound source, used in twenty odd Wikipedia :*articles. Pertinent to the subject and was originally in this article under the heading of ‘publications’ until edited out some time back.
• “Attendance at an anti-wind farm rally.” No this should not change. Wind energy exists and is proposed in many electorates in Australia. The fact that this subject, feels strongly about an issue to be a keynote speaker at a rally outside Australia’s parliament and hosted by Alan Jones is worthy of inclusion. Sources supporting this statement are the Herald Sun, Guardian and Sydney Morning Herald.
• “Criticism of ACT” OK your rewrite appears to be more accurate.
• “Coal seam gas” You may have point. Put it I’ve back in pending further discussion from others. Again, there was once a section on publications and had a brief run down on the subject’s agricultural, export, renewable energy reports – this report could perhaps go in here, should the publications section go back in.1955Dewayne (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Pete: You said above that this article is "causing real life problems now". What did you mean by that? ArthurSkittle (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

See the recent article edit history. That's disruptive, that is. Seems we're attracting attention through too much weight being placed on minor political views. Maybe you regard energy sources as the major focus of this guy's life, but from where I sit, he's just a rural member who occasionally, amongst his other duties, expresses views appropriate to his position. Not everyone loves wind farms.

Other points. RenewEconomy isn't a major source, and I selected it as a basis for removal when trimming down the article on WEIGHT and NPOV grounds. We rarely report on members attending political rallies. It's what they do. If what they say at such rallies is widely reported, it may be significant, but otherwise, meh. The CSG goes for reasons above. Nobody else has weighed in (unless we count removing the whole lot in one edit) and we don't synthesise content, anyway. --Pete (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have inserted an old edit on the subject’s publications and added the renewable energy report and coal seam gas report here, I hope this addresses your concerns regarding weight.

RenewEconomy, is publication run by former business editor and deputy editor of the Australian Fin Review former columnist for the Bulletin magazine and The Australian. Hardly a blog. Why is it not acceptable by your standards? Can you point me to the policy? Are you busy on the other pages where it is used as a citation?

For the reasons above, the political rally para is back in. The subject’s attendance and speaking at it was widely reported and the citations are sound. Attending a presenting at an Alan Jones led rally is more significant that a standard MP task.

1955Dewayne (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

My concern is with undue weight. This politician's life consists of more than a couple of lightweight mentions on your favourite topic. Adding yet more material doesn't address this issue. I'll wait until MMFFCC deletes the whole lit again. --Pete (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Can I suggest that an alternative to this might be to try to summarise his sourceable views in a couple of sentences, rather than trying to discuss everything he's done against wind energy? This would solve issues like three lines being dedicated to a comparatively minor dispute between the ACT and a couple of NSW MPs. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this article already underplays the significance of the subject's extensive advocacy against wind turbines. Many are not aware that the subject has a conflict of interest (his family farm borders the Boco Rock Wind Farm) or that he has played a lead role in his party (both before and after election) and his community in fighting wind energy policy. While there are vocal opponents in his region, it is not a dominant view, and is officially contrary to his party's policy platform. He has made it clear that he is actively involved in the RET review and has preempted the outcome in a recent talk in Rye Park (available on YouTube). It could be said that no other MP is as engaged as he is on this issue and his leadership role in the party on this issue has been reported in both the Australian and the Australian Financial Review. It should raise red flags that at least two COI editors have consistently blanked all mention of his focus on this area from this article. As 1955Dewayne has said, this issue defines the subject as pokies define Andrew Wilkie. I'm not advocating a blow by blow account, but this article in its current form is in no danger of giving undue weight to this topic. Again, Pete You have claimed that this article is "causing real life problems now". What do you mean? ArthurSkittle (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything extreme or extensive. Joe Hockey got way more mainstream coverage with a few words a couple of weeks back. Find a mainstream source that identifies AT in the terms you claim, otherwise it's NPOV, and you are just loading the article up with your personal preferences. Look at WP:BLP for guidance. Attending a rally is not notable, not unless we have a source that makes the point. It also goes to WP:RECENT. Again, the real-life problems you ask about are those you yourself identify two sentences earlier. --Pete (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Attendance at tea-party style wind energy fraud rally

I have put this para section back in and amended it to better reflect the main source. The para is worthy of being kept. As I mentioned before the subject was a keynote speaker at a rally outside Australia’s parliament. Furthermore, the rally was hosted by Alan Jones, successful and at times controversial radio broadcaster. The rally and the subject’s attendance was the subject of significant media attention. Also worthy of inclusion is that the sources note attendance at this rally to be a rift with regarding his party’s position on renewable energy policy. Sources supporting the para are the Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald and Herald Sun. A more convincing argument is needed to support its removal rather than “MPs attend rallies all the time.” 1955Dewayne (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It's just not notable. We're writing an encyclopaedia, and putting way too much emphasis on trivia like this skews the article. --Pete (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the rally can be notable - while it's not notable if a senior pollie speaks at a rally, first-term backbenchers don't do too many and it's one time when they can get across some of their own views. I think the editorialising is crap though. "Tea-party style?" Really? The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting your information? My experience is that politicians speak at political rallies and protests of every kind. Can't stop them, really. Is there any evidence of what AT said at the rally being of more than passing interest? A ringing speech of deathless prose, perhaps? --Pete (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The editorialising as a "Tea-party style rally" was the Sydney Morning Herald's description, not 1955Dewayne's. 1955Dewayne should have used quotes for that. I have fixed it. Taylor's attendance is notable, as explained in the SMH article, partly because his stance on the RET is/was at odds with his party's and also because the rally was organised by an anonymous "hate blog" and hosted by a controversial shock jock. Airbrushing the subject's record of his support of this event does not serve the interests of Wikipedians. Separately, there are some nice photos from the day. ArthurSkittle (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The photos we can't use, although I do like the second, showing the subject speaking against a background of signs and Alan Jones. Let me put it another way. Was the rally notable in itself? Does it have a Wikipedia article? Was it an ongoing story? Is it included as notable in Alan Jones' article? Or anyone's?

Or are we using Wikipedia for consciousness-raising, filling it full of stories and links to a subject that in itself isn't particularly notable? AT gets a guernsey in wikipedia because he's an MP, but his political views are not 100% dominated by wind power. For example, in his maiden speech, where he outlines his political interest, there are many references to agriculture, business and the economy, but not one reference to wind energy.[6]

Why this distortion? Why are we making the politician out to be something he clearly is not? Why are we misleading our readers? --Pete (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The biggest donor

Looking at the repeated deletion of material stating AT was a big donor to the LPA on the basis that it was factually incorrect, I can't see this. The SMH article we use as a source quotes the AEC returns on political donations and the big donor - a bigger donor than any Labor or Liberal politician including Turnbull - was Taylor. The article mentions that $50K was for a car and petrol to get around the large electorate, and another $105K was a loan since repaid, so it apparently wasn't all a gift, but still the statement is supported. I think it's notable and needs to be included. --Pete (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Opposition to Wind Energy

The last part of this is incomprehensible. Please help. SovalValtos (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This continuous edit-warring has got to stop

I'm getting sick of big chunks of material being inserted and removed day after day. This article is about a backbencher from regional Australia. It doesn't need to have half of its length devoted to wind power, attendance at various rallies and letters to the bloody editor. Get a grip, both of you. --Pete (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

For the love of god, listen to him. This is not a good use of your energies. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

So Skyring reverts to the edits of serial vandal MJJFFF (and probably COI editor) who is coming off a suspension from being blocked!?

My understanding from the talk page is that the sticking point (amongst those seeking to discuss issues) is the attendance at the “wind energy fraud rally.”

“ It doesn't need to have half of its length devoted to wind power, attendance at various rallies and letters to the bloody editor.”

The subject is worthy of more than a sentence on wind energy and the article had come a long way by addressing the reasonable concerns and wiki policy points raised by editors. Backbencher yes but his role in the wind/renewable debate was extensive before he was elected, after he was elected and currently. The wind energy debate is relevant to his electorate, you mentioned that “I was in Taylor's electorate yesterday. We drove past a windfarm on the Hume and it emerges there is a lot of local opposition to these things.” The subject has a conflict of interest as his family farm borders the Boco Rock Wind Farm (I removed this from the article following suggestions from other editors); he is actively involved in the current RET review and has preempted the outcome in a recent talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaKl81Rl3zg mentioned the wind/renewables in parliament http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F128494f5-3b78-4d37-9efd-c8ccbc721e70%2F0259%22 - if there were more flexibility on primary sources these would be in.

This rally is not ordinary: it was organised by an organisation which has been referred to as an anonymous and vile hate group; the subject was a keynote speaker; the rally was hosted by Alan Jones, successful and at times controversial radio broadcaster; the subject’s attendance was the subject of significant media; the sources note the subject’s attendance at this rally to be a rift with regarding his party’s position on renewable energy policy; and sources supporting the para are the Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald and Herald Sun. It meets your earlier test Skyring “if the ABC or SMH didn't report it, it's not going to be worth including for the target length.”

The reference containing letter to the editor is gone. It explains that subject’s dedication to this policy issue but its not necessary with the sound secondary source that is there. It must have crept back in with earlier vandalism repair.

Too bad if COI editors and their operatives have issues with the truth being the subject’s policy focus on wind / renewables or his keynote attendance at well organised and well reported rallies. The article is an accurately reflection, the sources are sound. I’m more than happy to stick around and assist in making this article an accurate reflection of subject’s key role in the current policy debate. 1955Dewayne (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"Too bad," you say. Well, thanks, but you and the other editor really need to find some way of ending this disruptive edit war, and I suggest finding some middle ground might be a good starting point. --Pete (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree, would love them to jump on here so something can be thrashed out (have asked) 1955Dewayne (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

MJJFFF's constant edit warring is getting very tiresome, but it's not helping things that he's got something to legitimately be annoyed about on top of what seems like a general COI on the subject. A couple of properly-cited sentences on his anti-renewable energy views is enough to not make for undue weight, and then everyone can go home and stop having to deal with this rubbish over an obscure backbencher. Just summarise what's there right down to the basics, stop trying to make it take up half the article, and ditch the letters to the editor and shonky referencing, and we might start to get somewhere. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Based primarily on MJJFFF's apparently total refusal to participate on this (or any) Talk page, I have initiated a new complaint regarding their edit warring. However, several other editors participating in this dispute should be aware that they have also violated the policy concerning edit warring and the 3RR rule, and all parties are advised to lay off unless and until collaborative editing can be reestablished on this article. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to have me blocked for restoring the correct content to the page. This is a biographical page, it is not political. You need to take note of other similar pages and you will see that their content remains biographical and not political. There is a difference. I kindly ask you to refrain from vandalising the page in this manner and adding information that is incorrect or irrelevant. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJFFF (talk • contribs) 02:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hon, you've got some serious misconceptions about how Wikipedia pages work. This is an encyclopedia. Biographical pages include, where notable, information about their political views. You're only going to get yourself banned if you continue to edit-war on that basis; your assumption that this is an excuse is, I'm sorry, just wrong. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no misconceptions. This is a page that is intended to be purely biographical. The adding of political information is wrong and I once more kindly ask you to refrain from adding information that is not relevant and often sometimes quite questionable in respect to fact and accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJFFF (talk • contribs) 02:12, 1 July 2014‎ (UTC

There is no such thing as "correct" content. There is content that is factual (or not), content that is verifiable (or not), content that is properly sourced (or not), content that is relevant (or not), but in no case can one edition of an article be deemed by anyone, including you, to be the one true and correct edition. And there is no single "standard" that biographical pages follow. As others have pointed out, it is entirely appropriate that a biographical article on a politician should include information on their political initiatives, positions, and utterances. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As to your claim that the article is "intended to be purely biographical", whose intentions are you referring to? Dwpaul ^Talk 02:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for speaking with me on this talk page. I will continue to edit the page as is appropriate.MJJFFF (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJFFF (talk • contribs) 02:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If you continue to edit this (or any) article in the same fashion as you have been doing, and if you do not begin to work collaboratively with other editors, you will inevitably find yourself blocked, for increasingly long periods of time, and/or permanently. That should have been understood as a result of your recent block for the same complaint. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have suggestions on how we can work "collaboratively" to solve this problem? So far any edits I make have been reverted. This is not working "collaboratively".MJJFFF (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Start a new discussion immediately below this one concerning the issues you have with the content others have and/or have proposed to introduce, and work toward consensus and, if necessary, compromise. Do not edit the article further on these points (and others are requested to likewise exercise self-restraint) until consensus is achieved. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And if it proves (as it sometimes does) that consensus is truly impossible to achieve, either a) consider whether it is really worth getting blocked to have this article read exactly as you would like it to read, or b) take the issue to Dispute Resolution. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears that others have already edited the page, when it was agreed here that others should also refrain from making edits while the issue was discussed. How is this fair.MJJFFF (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The article has not been edited for nearly the last hour, with the last edit very shortly after you actually (finally, after multiple suggestions that you do so) started participating in this conversation. You must very swiftly lose the idea that any change from your preferred version of the article is wrong or unfair. That is how articles are developed here. You really should read the many Wikipedia policies and guidelines that are wikilinked throughout this conversation. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

MJJFFF has been blocked for two weeks for their most recent edit warring violation. Other editors involved in this dispute are asked to consider the advice of The Drover's Wife above (just before the previous outdent) that some of the information which that editor objected to, while relevant, was being given undue weight and could/should be significantly condensed if reintroduced to the article. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

New content

Would like to declare myself as {{Connected contributor}} but am unclear how to do so. Have added small paragraph of content today to Mr Taylor's wikipedia page to reflect his appointments to parliamentary committees over the past 2 years. Am unclear also as to how to add a citation. Bucknellsan (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Watergate2019

Seems Angus Taylor at least can explain and show that he has zero to do with his little baby he created, the network of 2 companies one in the Cayman Islands.. ok sorry but anything Cayman stinks of something to hide.

Pub test here is not good friends. It's just the beginning really we all knew something was up with this Barnaby, now we know its deep to the tune of $79 million.

Here is a link to a fire sale after the deal was done. https://www.graincentral.com/property/queensland-cotton-powerhouses-clyde-kia-ora-for-sale/

I think a little more needs adding under the Business Interests section a rock solid source or hard evidence showing Angus and family has nothing to do with EAI. Not just "Taylor now says he is no longer part of that corporation"

I can also suggest perhaps adding all the beneficiaries of the windfall, list the shareholders of EAI. who has the money? Australia's money. Porcupinespine (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion of this issue. It is a place to discuss how to improve the Taylor article. The best way to approach this is to propose text to be added or subtracted from the article, along with reliable sources for the text proposed to be added. Post that here, and it can then be discussed. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Major changes required in 2020

This page needs significant changes to it, to comply with Wikipedia policies/guidance. It should firstly be noted that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, while news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. The 'controversy' section on the page does not comply with this. Suggestion to users would be to take guidance from other biographies of politicians, both Australian and other, for further appropriateness of content. For the biographies of living persons style guide and conventions, please see the article guidelines. Much of the content should be listed or cut, and if appropriate put into a "political views/ideology section". "Grasslands controversy is the same, as is Business interests. These should live in a career section, with subsections "business or professional career" and "political or parliamentary". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAussieGuyIsHere (talk • contribs) 02:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you've wildly misunderstood Wikipedia's inclusion policies. I'm not sure where you got the idea that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", but that's the complete opposite of how it works. And how it works on those "other biographies of politicians, both Australian and other", which you'd do well to check for yourself. I think you should go back to whoever gave you your "PR on Wikipedia 101" lessons and tell them that they were a fail. It might not be a bad idea to get rid of the "Controversy" heading singular (because Wikipedia generally doesn't like those) and better integrate those sections with the other content but all of the individual sections underneath it concern notable incidents/aspects of his career which are basically large and significant enough to warrant their own sections. To be absolutely clear - while it could do with being reorganised to some degree, any attempts to remove altogether or slash the negative content you/the subject would like out of the article is never going to stand. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland:@Drover's Wife:@TheAussieGuyIsHere: First up let me disclose a conflict as I understand it. I have read the wiki guidelines and I feel like I should disclose that I currently work in the Federal Parliament. It's my first role. I am also pretty new to Wikipedia. I have been making edits to articles on people from both sides of the house. No one has told me what to write. No one approves what I write. No one checks what I write. I write what I like. I have been as careful as I can to be balanced and to give good citations. I have read the wiki guidelines I am not comfortable to disclose which Parliamentarian I may be working for right now. The fact is I am moved around a lot. If I disclosed who I am working for right now, it could jeopardise my position. So I plan to stick to the process, keep the directives on biographies of living persons, be balanced and provide proper references. That said, I agree with @Drover's Wife: that 1. The negative content needs to stay, but it needs to be organised better than this huge bucket called "controversy". 2. Put each of the controversies under different aspects of this person's parliamentary service and views. 3. I am definitely going to provide some context on some of these controversies. I've done some research around this Cayman Island discussion and, I don't know how to put this politely, but the criticism is seriously messed up — Aaron Patrick from the AFR did some research and there's essentially nothing in this story at all. Still it needs to stay in the article somewhere, but so do the conclusions of the inquiries of various journalists. So, that's what I'd like to do. Hope that's okay. The Little Platoon (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

In terms of structure, when I look at the official "Good Articles" list from wikipedia, the articles which are biographies of living persons in the political category feature Mitt Romney and Joe Biden. I think the best of the biography of a living person in Australian politics would be Julia Gillard. It has an excellent structure

a) Early life

b) Early career

c) Parliamentary service

d) Political views

e) Personal life

I think that's worth following

The Little Platoon (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there shouldn't be a controversy section. It would be better just to list the issue that have arisen while he's been minister. I also agree you shouldn't have to disclose that you are working for Angus whoever your MP is.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland:@The Drover's Wife:@Damien Linnane: Okay, I've got my ducks lined up on this now. From what I can tell, almost all the criticism and controversy has begun since joining the Cabinet. So that's where it all belongs. I think I'll allude to it in the introduction too. I'll see how it works. It's been a pretty big part of the colour of this subject. In terms of outline, I just took another look at the Julia Gillard article, which definitely offers the best structure. I think it's the only article on an Australian Prime Minister or Premier or Cabinet Minster to be designated a Good Article! So, that's the benchmark as far as I can see. The Little Platoon (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife has retired & made no contributions since April 2020, but in any event pinging a user only works if you get their user name correct (it's missing "The"). --Find bruce (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Find bruce: Gosh, thank you for letting me know. @The Drover's Wife: has made a massive contribution on Australian subjects, particularly biographies of living persons. Always a good source of advice too - I plan to keep the watchword from above, "A couple of properly-cited sentences on his anti-renewable energy views is enough to not make for undue weight, and then everyone can go home and stop having to deal with this rubbish over an obscure backbencher. Just summarise what's there right down to the basics, stop trying to make it take up half the article, and ditch the letters to the editor and shonky referencing, and we might start to get somewhere."

But he is no longer "an obscure backbencher". Been Energy Minister for two years now. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48:@BorderTensions: Yes! That's true! Things have changed for this subject since @The Drover's Wife: gave the editor's warning.The Little Platoon (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48:@BorderTensions:@Find bruce:@Jack Upland:@Damien Linnane:@Peacemaker67: Okay, I've tried to reach my goal with this oh-so-very-contested article. As above, I wanted to help set out how Taylor fits in the current political scene, what his actual story is, instead of just a litany of controversies. They're all still there, but as advised above by @TheAussieGuyIsHere: these matters really belonged within the context of a section of the subject's parliamentary career. I've kept the labels like "Watergate" in the content, though I'm not sure really if they should be there. Just because a hashtag gets shared for a few days doesn't mean that it belongs in a biography of someone's life. Anyway it's all still there. The realpolitik/pragmaticism of the subject's political outlook is set out, but I think there's lots of room for some editor to spell out the political views of the subject. This will take a bit of work, actually looking at the framework of Taylor's thinking about power (he seems to b against any concentration, either in government or in a market) about the climate (he accepts the science of climate change, wants abatement, supports the Paris framework, but clearly hasn't won over the renewal community, but we need better analysis of his views than "he's anti-renewables", but, given recent funding rounds, that label doesn't seem to sum up his actual views. As mentioned, I took the structure of the Good Article Julia Gillard, which works well for all Australian Parliamentarians. Very open to feedback, I realise there are some strong supporters and strong critics on this talk page, but I really have tried to keep the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and I've used lots of left wing and right wing news sources (in fact, I think I've gone maybe a bit too heavy on the left side, but that's because the left wing news organisations are the ones who have written about Taylor more.The Little Platoon (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: My thanks to you for hopping on this and trimming a lot of unnecessary fat, and some unnecessary claims. Better already. The Little Platoon (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been pinged here a couple times, no doubt because I added a single sentence to the 'forgery' section back in April: [7] This page isn't on my watchlist. The final unit I did for my masters degree focused on document integrity and my lecturer cited Angus being accused of forgery. I came here to read more about the incident, and saw the information didn't include Angus' apology or the evidence he is lying as per the archived versions on Trove, so I added that. I have no strong feeling about Angus in general, though as an information professional I find the obvious forgery quite disturbing. But, I digress. I don't disagree with renaming the section from 'Controversy', though I'm not sure if I like the term 'siege' in quotes in the heading either as per MOS:SCAREQUOTES. I've just read through the whole section and it's clear there was some POV pushing in favour of Angus. I've made some changes removing bias; here are my edits: [8].

P.S. You're very welcome The Little Platoon. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Playlet: I noticed your pushback on a small part of the refreshed article which described The Guardian as a European news organisation. I also note that earlier this year that newspaper set out where it stands in an editorial, saying: "We are a European news organisation. Europe is our back yard. It’s in our hearts and it’s in our DNA. We will do everything we possibly can to report on Europe, to Europe, and for Europe.". A strong statement, no?The Little Platoon (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Come on. This is very clearly an article putting the newspaper on the side of Europe vs Brexit. It has nothing to do with the paper's position on Australian politics. The Australian arm of the paper is clearly Australian and the suggestion as it was written suggests a dual loyalty for the reason that they were attacking Taylor, which is wrong and intellectually dishonest. The incidents were also reported far beyond the Guardian and I am personally inclined to remove the part about the Guardian altogether.Playlet (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Came back to see if there was a reply to my comment. There's no need to clarify to the reader that The Guardian is European when they have an Australian arm, and I agree with Playlet that doing so is a deliberate attempt to mislead. And I would completely support removing mention of the Guardian entirely if the incidents were reported elsewhere. I've now decided to add this article to my watch-list after all, as it's clear biased POV pushing is ongoing. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane:@Playlet: I'm happy to see the "European News Organisation" go, it doesn't add a lot anyway. But it is relevant that the Guardian platform has led the way in investigating and criticising Taylor. That's documented, that's their claim; the other organisations, like ABC have simply followed The Guardian. So I have two questions (and it would be great to keep these interactions here rather than the edit wars that used to happen): 1. would it not be okay to make it clear how the Guardian has affected the story of this subject and 2. is it not okay to keep the way that MSN and Sky News have seen the controversy - seems to me the principle of balance would expect that. The Little Platoon (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I have not removed the reference to the Guardian, but there was a lot of weight given to that fact. It was mentioned in that one paragraph 4 times from memory. It was also reported far beyond Guardian/ABC as the article claimed. I have put in an amended version of the right wing view without the quotes which again give undue weight to the role of the Guardian and suggest a witch hunt.Playlet (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane:@Playlet:Ok. I think it's pretty balanced at this point. And no edit war! Yay! Only there's a bit that's bothering me now - about the Naomi Wolf thing. I read the speech again. He definitely messes up in saying that Wolf lived down the hall at that time. But he never says that Wolf was anti-Christmas. He says "Several graduate students, mostly from the north-east of the US, decided we should abandon the Christmas tree in the common room because some people might be offended." No opinion or action was ever attributed to the author. That was something the author imputed. And yet it became half the controversy. A real cyclone in a thimble.The Little Platoon (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This section looks like a mess; I find it confusing. "Years after Taylor mentioned the author and third-wave feminist in a speech[126]" - what is going on with that reference? What is it supposed to back up? I'm going to just re-write the whole section.

I get what you're saying about the fact Angus never explicitly mentions Wolf was one of one of the graduates against Xmas. Personally I question why he felt the need to drop her name at all, considering he completely got the fact she was there wrong. The only conclusion I can reach is that he is in fact imputing she was against Xmas. The Guardian article points out Taylor's spokesperson responded saying exactly what you're saying; he never directly said she was involved (even if he was implying it), so I think it's completely fair to just quote that rebuttal attributed to the Guardian source. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Little Platoon: Do you have access to this source currently being used in the article? [9] Can you tell me exactly what it says about Angus' involvement in Fonterra? Damien Linnane (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Also it's not a huge deal, but please read WP:REALTIME. You can't say things like "Today, Fonterra is the world's leading ...". You'd have to word it along the lines of "As of [DATE], Fonterra was the world's leading ... etc." I've removed that entire caption and image though for a different reason (see edit summary). The term "now" in the caption "Angus Taylor, now Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction ..." also needs be changed for the same reason. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: The FT article is just a backgrounder on Fonterra, such as "Founded in 2001 as a “national champion” co-operative to represent the interests of New Zealand’s dairy farmers, Fonterra has grown into a global giant processing milk in New Zealand, Australia, China and Latin America. It supplies almost a third of global milk exports, with China generating about a fifth of the group’s NZ$20.4bn (US$13bn) in revenues in 2018." But now that I've re-read it, I realise (thank you) that it doesn't really add much. It's the AFR article "lured into politics then left to languish" that explains Taylor's role in the formation of Fonterra, so I've put that citation in. For your reference, here are the first four paragraphs of that AFR article:

"In 2000, Angus Taylor stood in an austere boardroom with views across Wellington Harbour, New Zealand. The most powerful men in the country’s dairy industry sat around the table listening. These hard, driven men had been at war with each other for years, feuding over control of an industry that all of them believed could take on the world.

"The stakes were high. New Zealand’s rich farmland had the potential to generate billions of dollars in sales from milk, cheese, cream, butter, infant formula and other dairy products. But would the industry choose to compete on the global stage?

"The quietly ambitious Taylor stood before them. He had spent four years working on a master plan: to unify the bitterly divided industry into a single national champion.

"To bring the men to this point, the McKinsey consultant and Rhodes Scholar had needed to use every fibre of his charm and intellect. It worked and Fonterra, the multi-national dairy co-operative owned by 10,600 farmers, was born."

About the Naomi Wolf thing, yes, I agree with you, the mention of her in the story is a complete non-sequitur. Especially when you go off the transcription. When you watch the recording on Youtube (it's at about the 15 minutes point) it feels more like he's giving a bit of colour to the scene at New College at that time, like she's part of a chapter; but things come across differently when it's just words on a page. Even so, it's odd she even got mentioned. Still, it's what was said isn't it.

I had never looked at that WP:REALTIME issue before, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. I have made a couple of corrections to the article as a result. My gratitude to you for looking at this and explaining it to me.The Little Platoon (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've found a copy of that source myself. OK so here is where you added that source and information (and others): [10]. The sentence reads "He helped create enterprises for clients, notably Fonterra, which is now "the world's biggest dairy exporter." Your source only backs up the biggest exporter claim, and it actually says Fonterra is the "biggest milk exporter". But the real problem here is the source you used mentioned nothing about Angus, though you've placed it at the end of a sentence saying "[Angus] helped create enterprises for clients". The citation placement implies it backs up the entire sentence. It would have been more objective/transparent to place a [citation needed] tag after the part of the sentence it doesn't back up. More importantly, it's not OK to use that source as it doesn't mention anything about Angus. You're implying Angus' involvement in the company helped make them the biggest exporter. While that may or may not be the case, the source doesn't support it. Accordingly I find that misleading.

In this edit: [11] you make an attack on Wolf regarding a mistake on two pages of her book. The source does mention that alongside the dispute with Angus, however, it doesn't imply the events are linked. It's clear it's just giving some [at the time] recent information about Wolf being in the news. You seem to be implying Wolf is not a credible source because she made a mistake at one point in her life. Again, I find that misleading.

Have a read of WP:COATRACK. Do you understand the problem with the edits you made? Look it's quite clear you're here to make Angus look as favourable as possible. Would you deny that at all? Damien Linnane (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: First about sourcing. I've gone back into the article and used the AFR citation which shows the involvement of Taylor in the creation of Fonterra. (Which, according to The Australian and CNN is the world's biggest milk exporter, and according to the FT and The Canberra times is the world's biggest dairy exporter, but that's by the by.) I apologise that I wasn't more careful with my citation. What's most valuable is the story of the subject and his relationship to Fonterra, I believe I've clarified that now.

Second, about Naomi Wolf. It's true, I don't regard her as a credible source. But as you know, that bit about her having her book pulped has now been removed, which I think is probably a good thing. I haven't sought to revert that edit, and I'm not going to because it really isn't central to the matter at hand.

Third, your point about coatracking has given me pause. I feel sobered by it. That is not something I want to do. I'm interested in looking at people, especially MPs, and making sure all their ideas and actions are seen. In my edit, I've set out and expanded on very significant business failures this subject has been involved in, one of which cost investors several million dollars. I personally find the subject perfectly imperfect, someone who has made significant mistakes, and I hope I've set that out with good balance. Again, thank you for pointing out the errors I have made in attempting to do this.The Little Platoon (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I can understand it's difficult to grasp all of Wikipedia's guidelines at first, and that it's easy to unintentionally make mistakes. I haven't had the time to look at each one of your edits, so apologies if I missed you adding something less favourable about him. That being said, I've started looking into the history of this article. One editor has previously stated Angus Taylor's office instructed him to work on this article: [12]. A person who openly states she is Angus' wife confirms one of his staff was asked to do this: [13]. Both these users made very biased edits in favour of Angus, which went completely against established guidelines. The person who said she is his wife added personal details about Angus to the article which probably weren't publicly available, which is strong evidence she is indeed who she claimed to be.

Since there's very strong evidence a member of Angus' staff has been instructed to edit this page on his behalf, and since you openly state you are a staff member for a politician you won't name, well, put it this way. I assume you can at least appreciate that considering the facts it's hard to not at least be a bit suspicious. Until you explicitly say you're not or haven't worked for him, I think the average person would assume you're currently working for Angus, or at least have in the past. I can appreciate your reasoning for declining to say who you're working for, but if you are working for him (or have previously) I think in terms of COI it would look much worse if it came out later rather than now. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: I'm just going to say right up front, I really like how you handle your identity and your story and so on. You must be the most put-it-all-out-there editor on this whole encyclopedia. I imagine that is a very high value for you. I have thought a lot about doing the same. But, as I declared a few weeks ago above, and on my user page, I don't feel comfortable doing that. I want to write about all the Parliamentarians I come across, and I don't want them necessarily knowing that. I want to be able to write the truth, being balanced, using good sources, keeping a neutral point of view. I write about ALP figures, I write about Liberal figures. I write articles on MPs in other countries. No one approves what I do - except other editors here at wiki, to see if I am being balanced and truthful. I realise it's different from the approach you have taken where you've actually used your name! Although you didn't always, so you must have made a decision at some point that you wanted to be more "out". You must have thought about that very carefully. Anyway, I'm just going to try to be guided by the pillars, about not being editorial but being encyclopedic, about being as neutral as I can with good sources, being respectful (I hope I have been with you!) and, finally, being guided by my conscience (as Wikipedia does not have firm rules). I hope you can understand my situation.The Little Platoon (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: I thought about this some more, and I think I'd really like to get a proper perspective from COID. I felt I'd done the right thing by disclosing my role at the Parliament, and I only got encouragement from that point above, but maybe it's not enough. So, I've tagged you in that thread. If it's an unacceptable thing then I'll have to think about whether I do this any more. Or maybe just do articles on figures from history. Much less controversial!The Little Platoon (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Little Platoon: Thanks for your response, you've been very professional about this and I can respect that. I can appreciate your position. It's actually really unique, and you've probably made the right choice putting it at the noticeboard. To be honest I don't know what the most appropriate step from here is. I'm starting to think the fact that there are already two editors with COI related to this article has probably 'ruined' it for you a bit, and that's probably a shame. If that hadn't of happened, there wouldn't be grounds for suspicion. The fact that is did, however, made me a bit weary. You're professional response has put me at ease somewhat, but I think it's definitely for the best that you've put your position on the noticeboard.

And yes, to the best of my knowledge I'm the only former prisoner openly editing Wikipedia haha. I actually used to be an incredibly private person online. When the media initially covered my arrest, however, well let's just say they didn't let the truth get in the way of a good story, and I have the documents to prove they painted me in a very biased light. In the end it was actually quite liberating though, and now I'm glad it happened. I decided to stop hiding and start putting my own work out there, and now I've been published on several fronts. I figured if people could Google unsavory things about me they should at least be able to see what I have to say about myself. But anyway that's enough about me. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: seriously, kudos to you. Mean it.The Little Platoon (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Alby Schultz Angus Taylor Mrs Schultz.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Family Influences section is problematical

The Family Influences section is problematical and also very unusual content for an encylopedia (being quite subjective). It should be cut down into a much shorter section (with new title) that just details his family background. For example, it need only contain one or two sentences recording who his maternal grandfather was, not whole paragraphs much more devoted to this grandfather's life than the subject itself. Oska (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed a substantial amount of unneeded material from that section. Should anyone wish to restore tales of limping grandfathers, droughts, youth in romantic terms and a good dog, please feel obliged. CalDoesIt (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality and OR tags

I was a bit surprised by the state this article is in. The article makes some pretty extravagant claims, notably that Taylor was the "creator" of Fonterra, which (a) isn't backed up by the sources provided and (b) makes little sense - Fonterra was a merger of two existing conglomerates, lobbying for a merger is not the same as creating a company. A statement that Taylor recommended the creation of Fonterra is sourced to an article which does not even mention Taylor. There are further issues with sources not backing up statements in the article, which presumably have been introduced by the same editor. The section on "Farm Partnerships Australia" is cited to a source which is about an entirely different entity. ITBF (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)